We’re currently 23 months—nearly two years—away from the first Democratic party presidential primaries and caucuses for the 2028 race. And yet, there is currently an intense flame war online over whether or not trans people and their allies should vote for California governor Gavin Newsom, should he get the Democratic nomination.

The most recent round of discourse was kicked off when popular socialist streamer Hasan Piker said that he would vote third party if Gavin Newsom ended up running against vice president JD Vance. Piker’s comments kicked off a round of liberal and centrist outrage, with many accusing Piker of essentially personally ushering in another Republican fascist regime by voting this way.

Predictably, the backlash against anti-Newsom folks has once again fallen heaviest on trans people on the left, for whom a Newsom administration presents a unique danger of solidifying the wholesale rollback of our civil rights instituted by the Trump administration.

The discourse is a bit tedious and annoying if you ask me, if only because perceived frontrunners this far out from a presidential primary rarely end up with successful campaigns. The most famous example of this is probably Hillary Clinton, who ultimately lost both of her campaigns as the presumed Democratic party frontrunner.

Let me lay out just why so many trans leftists and even liberals are so concerned about Gavin Newsom’s potential candidacy. A bare look at Newsom’s record shows a politician with a pretty solid record on LGBTQ2S+ issues, at least on the surface. According to The Advocate, as of December 2025 Newsom has signed 47 pro-LGBTQ2S+ bills into law since taking office in 2019, of which 21 were explicitly pro-trans.

Among these laws are one that made California a sanctuary state for trans kids. He also resisted President Trump’s demand that California ban trans women athletes from women’s scholastic and collegiate sports in the state.

But a closer look at that record, and his comments about the issue more recently, present more questions than answers. For one, California’s legislature has had a veto-proof majority for Newsom’s entire run as governor, meaning that the Democrats have enough votes to override a governor’s veto. (Though it should be noted that the legislature hasn’t overridden a veto since 1979.)

Newsom has also vetoed several pro-trans pieces of legislation, and is doing so with greater frequency now that he is apparently eying a White House run.

More concerningly, Newsom started a podcast last year which he has used to court various high profile figures on the right, including Charlie Kirk, who is dead; Ben Shapiro; Steve Bannon and various right wing podcasters and media figures with smaller followings. Over the course of these interviews, Newsom has shown a chronic willingness to concede to conservative talking points on trans issues specifically.

@xtramagazine Why are media and government officials working overtime to connect trans people to the shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk? Xtra senior editor Mel Woods argues that trans people and anyone who thinks they’re an ally to trans people should be worried about the way the narrative has shifted. Because not only has the past week demonstrated gross media negligence when it comes to covering this story, it’s showcased just how unstoppable the breathless attempts to link trans people to political violence have become in America—despite that link being truly unfounded and not backed up by facts. #charliekirk #lgbtqnews #transgender #news #media ♬ original sound – Xtra Magazine

He told Kirk that he is “completely aligned” with Kirk’s positions on trans rights, has repeatedly said that liberals went too far in supporting trans athletes and said that he has begun questioning the issue of health care of trans youth.

It’s clear that when Newsom is trying to connect with conservative guests and their audiences, he thinks this is how to get his “in” with them—through trans issues. In these interviews, he’s also trying to draw distinctions: he supports restrictions on trans athletes and health care for trans youth, but decries other forms of discrimination against trans issues. Those positions, by the way, also happen to align perfectly with public polling on trans issues, where the general public also think there should be restrictions on trans youth and athletes but generally want trans people left alone.

But these are not the words of a man who understands the complete harm that has been done to trans people. As a trans person in the U.S., do I trust that Newsom will roll back Trump’s policy that requires me to have a passport marked as male despite the fact that I’ve lived as a woman for over 10 years now? No, I do not.

I get what the governor is trying to do here. He’s trying to get in early, and paint himself as different from the “radicals” in his own party. He is trying for his own Sister Souljah moment that will tell voters he’s not too liberal for the White House.

But when it comes down to it, none of Newsom’s fence-sitting will matter in a general election.

Republicans will still paint him as a pro-trans extremist because of his signature on the sanctuary law alone. They’ll trot out Jeff Younger, who got famous grifting off his disapproval of his child’s trans identity, to make some sobbing ad about how his ex-wife took their trans kid to California to get out from under Texas’s extreme anti-trans laws, and they could even use the same tagline as they did in the last election: “Gavin Newsom is for they/them.” They don’t have to change the attack ad at all, just slide in Newsom’s name for Kamala Harris’. Democrats do not have enough media power to combat that narrative, no matter how many fascists go on Newsom’s podcast.

So no, I will not vote for Newsom, and even if he did win the nomination, he won’t win the general election. Everyone can smell the ambition in his hair gel, and Americans can’t stand that stuff.

The left, along with trans people, are trying to warn you off this guy. He is widely despised across the political spectrum—his electability is not as high as those who are chronically online and love his posts mocking Trump think it is. But he does represent the centrist wing of the Democratic party, and he’s currently all in on fighting against the proposed billionaire tax in California, so the corporate money spigot will remain open for him. Those two things alone make him a viable primary candidate.

Ultimately, I do not think the left will sway the rest of the Democratic party off of Newsom. There are too many party systems, consultant instincts and media resources devoted to suppressing the left that it would take a truly revolutionary voter revolt to nominate anyone more to the left of Newsom.

I am dreading what will happen if Newsom is the Democratic party nominee.